About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Decided Guidance: Staying Within Your Survey Print E-mail
Written by Jason E. Foose, PS   
Saturday, 21 January 2017

A 563Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with map—is available by clicking HERE

The Case of Erickson v. Turnquist was brought to the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1956 as an appeal of the District Court's order denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. This is a classic "mano a mano" Land Surveyor cage match. As usual we will pick through the Court's bundle of evidence and gnaw on the bones in hindsight. So, without further aduix let's put on our retrospective safety goggles and begin the disection.

In a nutshell this case looks at the common line between two 140' x 50' town lots. We have J.E Howard, the "well seasoned" County Surveyor, doing a line survey for the plaintiff, and Harold S. Hall, a PE/PS with "several years expirience", doing the same line survey for the defendant sometime thereafter. Hall set his monuments a strong foot away from Howard's thus defining a 1' x 140' Sudetenland between the individual domains of Erickson and Turnquist. Fortunately, they chose to settle thier differences in court rather than rolling out the blitzkrieg.

What did we learn from Dittrich v Ubl?
We looked at Dittrich back in December 2016 Issue. The Court in that case said "This is not a situation where there is an absence of other controlling calls or landmarks which can be ascertained, but on the contrary, the record shows a definite monument directly traceable to the one described on the original plat itself." Okay, so what's the big deal with having a monument directly traceable to the original plat other than it's close and easy? Well the Supreme Court of Minnesota tells us precisely what the big deal is right here in Erickson and I quote

"Since the location of lots, streets, and alleys within a plat is determined by their relation to the original monuments and landmarks of the plat, it must be apparent that the proper point from which to commence a survey to determine the boundary line between lots within an addition is an original or properly relocated monument or landmark within the addition itself..."

If that's a hard pill for you to swallow then you're going to be in deep kimchi when I tell you that each recorded plat is actually a big sequential conveyance encapsulating a group of simultaneous lots. When you resort to going outside of your plat you are suggesting that every scrap of evidence from that original simultaneous conveyance (a.k.a. the plat) is LOST. If you consider each plat as a "unique event in time" then overstepping it's content or perimeter might be as foul as prorating through found monuments.

Round One--The P.O.B.
Howard came out swinging with a P.O.B that he said was in the middle of the railroad tracks and several blocks outside of our plat of Northern Pacific Addition. He changed hands and later said that he used a point at the intersection of Jefferson and Ash Streets within a platted site called Town of Wadena. Neither punch really connected as the Court noted that the separate plat of the Town of Wadena did not show a monument at either of Howard's points. Howard did not have persuasive evidence connecting his found monuments to either plat.

Hall dodged, wove, and countered Howard's jabs by starting within the Northern Pacific Addition and presenting strong evidence tying an original corner directly to his P.O.B. Hall lands a solid blow to Howard's chin by 1.) Recovering old reference points to the mark, 2.) Recovering a recorded pedigree of the mark, and 3.) Recovering documented public recognition of his point. Ding, ding, Round One goes to Hall.

Round Two--Following the Footsteps
Howard wandered into the ring much the same as he wandered around measuring half of the townsite. In all fairness you can't actually retrace an event that never happened however, this collection of measurements also doesn't offer much evidence of the original survey. Hall entered the ring with a square posture and threw a testimonial left hook to Howard's jaw. Hall said that he actually compared his measurements made on the ground against the distances and calls made on the original plat and found them nearly identical. Ding, ding, ding...<Howard stumbled back to his corner and Hall bantied around the ring> Round Two-Hall.

Round Three--The Sudetenland
Round three was decided by the judges. Howard threw the first punch by staking the line and Hall countered sometime later. What I find most fascinating about this case is the choice of words used to describe the opposing surveyor's conclusions.

Howard's effort is described as such: "From the point of commencement he ran his survey west and south into Northern Pacific Addition to block 35. He then determined what he considered to be the boundary line between lots 3 and 4 and set stakes at both ends of the line." The Court identified that Howard started in the twilight zone and crossed "into" our plat. We have already discussed why that might be an important factor to this Court. Next the Court chooses words that sound to me like they really wanted to disenfranchise Howard's effort. The Court appears to hint that Howard's conclusion is meatless by describing it as "what he considered to be the boundary line..." There's no mention or credit that his determination was founded on some actual evidence. The only thing we know is that the Court ties Howard's provided on line to what Howard These data are an "AS-IS" basis, to conclusions on thinks. I may be jumping without warranty of any type, this point so take it with a grain of salt, or expressed or implied, including but not better yet, maybe limited leave warranty also must just to any it. as to their performance, We merchantability, or fitness for consider that the Court is reviewing1:8,000 the any particular purpose. lower conclusion, not necessarily creating a new conclusion. The Court says that right from the "git-go." "It is elementary that on review the facts are to be considered in the light most favorable to the findings [1] and that our function is to look to the evidence as a whole to determine whether it is sufficient to sustain the findings of the district court.

Hall's opinion is clearly based on evidence directly traceable to the original plat. The Court cited the evidence recovered by Hall and recognized that he actually retraced the plat on the ground. The court also says he completed his survey which makes Howard’s effort seem somewhat whimsical.

“It was from these landmarks that he commenced his survey. He compared his measurements made on the ground against the distances and calls specified on the Dartt as well as the original plat. He found them to be nearly identical. Having completed his survey, he set stakes at both ends of the line which he determined to be the boundary line between lots 3 and 4.”

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...TKO by Hall in three and the bookies are crying! Put a fork the plat on the ground. The court also says in it because this fight is done!

Note: A PDF of this case can be found at http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/EricksonVersusTurnquist.pdf

Jason Foose is the County Surveyor of Mohave County Arizona. He originally hails from the found them to be nearly identical. Having Connecticut Western Reserve Township 3, range completed his survey, he set stakes at both XIV West of Ellicott's Line Surveyed in 1785 but ends of the line which he determined to be now resides in Township 21 North, Range 17 West the boundary line between lots 3 and 4." of the Gila & Salt River Base Line and Meridian.

The Corny Analogy of the Month // WARNING: this analogy contains a pirate reference

The Erickson Court says: "The question before us is not whether Hall's survey was precisely accurate but rather whether there is evidence that reasonably supports the findings of the trial court. It is a matter of common knowledge that surveys made by different surveyors seldom, if ever, completely agree and, that more than likely, the greater the number of surveys the greater the number of differences."

Retracement surveying is more about evidence and less about measurement.Thank you Supreme Court of Minnesota for providing the guidance. Among other things, boundary monuments and occupation lines are the physical body of land boundaries. Title is of course an abstract legal concept associated with that body. The legal description or plat dimensions are recovery instructions leading folks to the evidence of the body on the ground. Okay, so here you have your swashbuckling analogy of the month: The plat is the treasure map of a survey and the remaining ground evidence is the actual treasure. Yeah, I know that's "corny-er" than a combine in harvest but we are talking about a "buck an ear."

Editor's note: Mr. Foose has been advised by the magazine staff to retain his day job and refrain from any standup gigs...anywhere... ever! He has also been urged to seek professional counseling.

A 563Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with map—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev   Next >

Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


SXblue Announces
Premier Receiver

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax